The Freedom of Speech Vs the Right to Discriminate; American and French Policy on Banning Muslim Religious Attire”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“The Freedom of Speech Vs the Right to Discriminate; American and French Policy on banning Muslim Religious Attire” Cortni Holthaus A New Middle East Spring 2016 3/31/2016 From hijab bans to TSA patdowns, the American and French government have shown no tolerance whatsoever to the people in the Muslim community in the aftermath of terror events such as 9/11 and the 2015 Paris Attack. In my essay, I explain why the American and French government have responded to these events the way they did, how it negatively affects Muslim people, and how the problem should be solved instead. The first and fourteenth amendments of the U.S Constitution, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, gives religious Muslim women the right to wear hijab, because there can be no state or federal law which prohibits this activity. However, there is a major caveat in this amendment; Sometimes, in a building like a school or an airport, hijab is not allowed, along with headscarves. This is because these public buildings often have a rule of no head coverings, and wearing hijab can be perceived as a safety issue, as the garment is loose, and items could potentially be stored under it. In the US' laws and French laws surrounding the right to religious attire, the laws are often contradicting, and can be interpreted many different ways by the governments and other national institutions. My goal is to explain why the U.S and French are inherently Islamophobic towards Muslim clothing, and explain what can be done in order to ameliorate this problem, taking in mind the recent terror attacks in Paris, and of past events such as 9/11. [1] All things considered, the government's refusal to accommodate for religious attire is very intolerant of Muslims and would seem to support the stereotype that all Muslims who wear hijab are automatically involved in terrorism and are plotting massive murder sprees, or preparing for a suicide bombing. Eight years ago, in 2008, Lisa Valentine was trying to attend a traffic hearing for her nephew, but was not permitted to enter the courtroom due to her headscarf. Valentine then tried to leave, when she was detained by security officers of the courtroom and brought before the Judge Keith Rollins, who sentenced her to ten days of incarceration for contempt of court. One question here is, how is it that 1. (ACLU, 2010) refusing to take off a headscarf is a contempt of court, when it is supposedly permitted under the first and fourteenth amendments? [2] Going back to the American Civil Liberties Union article, “Discrimination Against Muslim Women-Fact Sheet,” overall there is an astounding amount of places where a girl or woman can be denied the right to wear a hijab or headscarf. These include, but are not limited to, schools and universities, jails, courthouses, athletic events, certain occupations, and many public buildings and attractions like amusement parks and swimming pools. [1] One extreme example of this discrimination in America's laws is when in 2011, there was a large brawl at the New York Rye Playland after a group of Muslim women, accompanied with Muslim men as well, refused to remove their headscarves before going on the rides at the park. This led to a large argument among the group of Muslims with local police officers which then spiraled into a large scale fight. According to Ayman Alrabah, she and her sister did not know of the rules prohibiting headscarves before getting to the ride, stating, “We requested a refund and all of a sudden an argument became a riot.”The amusement park's response to the treatment of the group was very apathetic with the park official Peter Tartaglia issuing the statement, “We respect the religious purpose of wearing it, but we have several rides that you cannot go on with any sort of headgear,” after discussing how the rules are for a safety purpose, as opposed to religious discrimination. [3] 1. (ACLU, 2010) 2. (Nasaw, 2008a) 3. (Duell, M. and Whitwell, L, 2011) In the case of safety purposes, it is understandable that the Rye Playland park had the right to .refuse service to the group of Muslims and to not permit them onto the ride, but the reactions they received from the local law enforcement was too overpowered, and certainly not necessary to cause as big of a scene. Referring to the treatment the cops gave the group, Ayman Albrah tells us, Cops came. They were hitting my brother, my dad. My husband was on the floor and they were handcuffing him.Previously in the article, one Muslim claimed as well, It's clear, this all happened because we're Muslim. [3] The statement of the police brutality occurring because the visitors were Muslim brings up the argument of whether or not law enforcement treats each citizen equally under the law, or is inherently racist and discriminatory. In the Washington Post article, “Being a cop showed me just how racist and violent the police are. There's only one fix,” by former police officer Redditt Hudson, Hudson describes his induction as a police officer in St. Louis, Missouri and his experience with racism while on the job. One prime example Hudson provides is how other officers were involved in the website exclusively for St. Louis officers called Coptalk, where “Cops routinely called anyone of color a “thug,” whether they were the victim or just a bystander.” This of course falls under the spectrum of racial profiling, which is just as damaging to a society as religious profiling is; They both prevent healthy relationships between people 3. (Duell, M. and Whitwell, L, 2011) internationally, and contribute to a massive amount of violence and harm to the victims involved. [4] Hudson claims that; The problem is that cops aren't held accountable for their actions, and they know it. These officers violate rights with impunity. They know there's a different criminal justice system for civilians and police.[4] He also says that many of the trials for excessive force or breaking a suspect's rights are brought forth often by a police officer's close colleagues, who would give the trial a biased opinion, which would only favor the officer most certainly, preventing the suspect from receiving a fair trial. [4] As stated before, police officers do not only profile people of color, but also of religion. The Free Thought organization's article, “So It Begins: Cop Threatens To Arrest Muslim Woman For Wearing A Hijab” by Claire Bernish, Bernish describes a shocking scene of Islamophobia post Paris and Brussels attacks. A Muslim woman wearing hijab in a public library in Washington D.C was asked by a police officer to remove her hijab, and given an ultimatum to either leave immediately, or to be escorted out by the officer. Bernish explains how this Islamophobia will only make the West's experience with terrorist attacks much worse, claiming 4. (Hudson, R, 2014) Any group subjected to continuous discrimination and constant denigration will first experience fear, but eventually that fear begins to translate to resentment. When resentment builds to an ultimate level, it tends to translate to action-not in carrying out a terrorist attack, but in a more insidious way.[5] Returning to the first article about Women's freedom to wear hijab, this denigration as described by Bernish is what causes many young women to join Daesh, because Daesh offers a way out for these women, and promises of better lifestyles if they simply join the group. [1] [5] The Business Insider article tells us that the way out for these women is not only in becoming married to jihadi fighters in the article, “ISIS is luring Western women with troubling simplicity” by Danica Kirka. Kirka first starts discussing to the audience that women joining ISIS should not be viewed as a joke, as ISIS is extremely radical, and some women join ISIS due to the persecution of their Muslim beliefs, along with wanting a sisterhood with other young women. Returning to the article, “Georgia judge jails Muslim woman for wearing headscarf to court,” perhaps this is what Kirka is describing in her argument; that Muslims faced with intense discrimination towards their beliefs and activities of their beliefs can become radicalized and join terrorist organizations. [2] [6] The intense persecution that Kirka is describing can certainly cover Muslims being denied access to public places, and also includes brutality shown towards them and violent acts towards members of their community, like in the Rye Playland Park. [3] 1.(ACLU, 2010) 2. (Nasaw, D, 2008a) 3. (Duell, M. and Whitwell, L, 2011) 5. (Bernish, C, 2016) 6. (KIRKA, D. and Press, A, 2015) Another article from the American Civil Liberties Union titled Factsheet: The NYPD Muslim Surveillance Program, brings up that since 2002 (post 9/11), The NYPD's Intelligence Division has been deliberately profiling members of the community in order to 'prevent' terrorism which involved the NYPD spying and watching neighborhoods with a large Muslim percentage and recording license plate numbers of people leaving mosques. [7] One separate but related article by The Guardian, “Racial profiling by law enforcement is poisoning Muslim Americans' trust” would also agree with Kirka's sentiment on religious profiling when the author of the article, Sahar Aziz states, Millions of dollars are spent flying bureaucrats from various federal agencies to meet and greet Muslim leaders, most of whom are male, in an attempt to earn their trust. In those meetings, local and state law enforcement is invited to build long-term relationships with the Muslim communities in their jurisdictions.